Beck v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

*568 "WiNBORNE, J. Is it proper to admit evidence at variance witb tbe bill of particulars filed? Tbe uniform decisions of tbis Court say “No.” When a bill of particulars is ordered and furnished, tbe evidence offered at tbe trial must be confined to items therein specified. S. v. Wadford, 194 N. C., 336, 139 S. E., 608; Gore v. Wilmington, 194 N. C., 450, 140 S. E., 71; Ham v. Norwood, 196 N. C., 762, 147 S. E., 291; Gruber v. Ewbanks, 199 N. C., 335, 154 S. E., 318; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737; S. v. Everhardt, 203 N. C., 610, 166 S. E., 738; Pemberton v. Greensboro, 205 N. C., 599, 172 S. E., 196; Savage v. Currin, 207 N. C., 222, 176 S. E., 569; S. v. Williams, 211 N. C., 569, 190 S. E., 898. Over tbe objection of defendant, tbe trial court admitted evidence of “other occurrences” which varied from tbe bill of particulars filed by plaintiff — especially witb respect to tbe Stella Yount purchase. In tbis there is prejudicial error. As there must be a new trial, other exceptions need not now be considered as tbe matters to which objection is taken may not then recur. Demurrer, ore tonus, made in tbis Court by defendant is overruled. "When liberally construed, tbe complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. For error specified, let there be a New trial.